Monitor calibration: how do you know it's right? Can you match monitors? Are cheaper calibrators OK?

[@blainegauvin9458]

Clear as mud Keith... LOL... love it ... cheers.

[@KeithCooper]

Would that be the transparency of any specific mud at standard thickness? ;-)

[@blainegauvin9458]

@KeithCooper 😳😳🙄... LOL.

[@arampan]

Thank you 🙏🏻

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks

[@GethinColes]

Great timing. I'm trying to get a decent calibration on a dual monitor setup. Can't figure out how to zero windows 11 calibration so I know I'm starting from zero. Last week windows was entirely refusing to apply any profile. Now it appears to be applying the same profile to both.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks, but an area I cannot help with I'm afraid - I've not actually used a win PC this century The place I'd ask is the printing forum at DPReview

[@frstesiste7670]

Just be cautious about the answers. Some people on forums will explain things they don't know. Probably don't know they don't know. I've calibrated my PC screens for around 20 years now, and still not quite sure I get it right and still don't consider myself an expert. Basically, if you hardware calibrate as mentioned in the video that's the "safest" way for Windows. If you calibrate in the display card then it has to have separate lookup tables for each screen to work properly. That could be a problem maybe ten+ years ago, particularly with laptops and I simply don't know if it still is (probably not). When you have created a profile for each screen you have to go into the Windows display Setting program, Advanced display settings, and for each screen open the Display adapter dialog where the Color Management tab let you assign a profile for the screen (on Win 10, might be slightly different on 11). That is unless your calibration software set up everything. Personally, I currently only calibrate the main screen for editing and leave the others alone. There are many things that could go wrong too, including how the programs you use handle multiple profiles and my best advice is to get hands on help form someone who really know their stuff. Color handling is the one thing that make me (sometimes) wish I used a Mac instead of Windows.

[@johnsmith1474]

No idea what "zero windows 11 calibration" means. In the case of Win 10 if you right click on the desktop you can choose the "display settings" and the limited options are there. Windows key/P gives the multiple display choices on my Win 10. I won't go to 11 until they fix all the horrible changes those sobs at MS made. In my case, my color calibration software Color Navigator 7 created a profile, and threw it into the correct folder for Windows to grab it when it boots up. It is shown in my display settings (see above). Note: When your software creates your profile it will ask where to save it, use the default location but add something to the filename so you recall it, like the model of the monitor, just in case you get thrown choices you'll know which is the one you want.

[@frstesiste7670]

Assume he mean that no profile is loaded when doing the calibration.

[@peteb5461]

Hi Keith, great advise as always, really helps to get a better understanding of this topic! May i ask the model numbers of your monitors?

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks In the video? SW272U and SW2700PT

[@BrutalTurtle]

Hope those wall anchors on that shelf are strong enough. Got me worried just looking at that weight!

[@KeithCooper]

It's a brick wall. Those supports are used all over the house for big book shelves ;-)

[@wojtekkalinowski246]

Thanks

[@KeithCooper]

Glad it was of interest

[@Richardincancale]

Hi - I recall that in the TV industry they used a ‘standard illuminant’ - C for a long time, then D, which specifies the spectral power at each wavelength for a theoretical daylight colour balance. Wouldn’t the same apply to the photographic world?

[@KeithCooper]

This is indeed an option when building printer profiles. For monitors a white point is set generally a colour temperature [K] or an illuminant like D65 [similar, but not quite the same as 6500K] More detail: A copy of "Real World Color Management" by Fraser et al. is always my next suggestion ;-)

[@Richardincancale]

@ Thanks - I’ll look in my local (French) to see if they have a copy!

[@theoldfarmerguy1238]

Going to sound like some noob questions here. I have an newish to me computer and an LG 21x9 monitor that was advertised to be pre-calibrated....I didnt fuss or change anything because all my photos and videos looked great with the factory calibrated settings, surprisingly looked the same to my eye with photos that I had edited on my last computer when displayed on new computer and monitor. I have had several prints done by commercial print service (Bay Photo in USA) for display. Much to my pleasure the prints look great after I had done initial image editing ( I mean they look as I remember them as I took the photos.) Of course they are not as punchy or bright as my LED display but they are reflective prints and colors look to be accurate color with no blocked up shadows and nice contrast. Am I just lucky and should just be glad to have a setup that pleases me? Leave everything alone ?

[@KeithCooper]

Despite all the techy stuff I cover, I always say that if you've a setup which works for you, then just keep using it ;-) There are all sorts of adjustments/settings you can change - but if it ain't broke...

[@philiptuths3747]

Using Mac Studio computer with Mac Studio Display out to Canon Pro 300 using Canon PPL. Colors are spot on without calibration.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - that doesn't surprise me There are times where the display will benefit from calibration - but not for basic stuff like this.

[@johnsmith1474]

Alas the Studio Display is fatally flawed. It covers a lowly 85% of the Adobe RGB color space, the preferable space for shooting stills. They cannot be calibrated. With the gloss finish they are awful monitors for print work. On the upside but are the best looking on the desk, and they go very bright for use in well lit offices. Did I mention the price? Let's not. Keith's BenQ covers over 95% Adobe RGB and has a flat non glare finish as a proper photography monitor should.

[@KeithCooper]

That reduced gamut is not necessarily a 'fatal flaw' for many, if you know what you are doing - I edited my professional work on an Apple cinema display for years. I'd not choose to do so again though!

[@johnsmith1474]

@@KeithCooper - I completely agree, but every bit of clarification eventually adds up to knowing the big picture. And it's important to guide people to products that aren't presenting as something that they are not. We could also talk about the lower desirability of a glossy screen for editing, etc. I completely agree that people should be supported in using what they have. I learned photography starting with a dark room with a pinhole in a window shade, then an oatmeal box, then a Yashicamat TLR. :)

[@johnsmith1474]

Just a small point of semantics, but your monitors are not set to warm temp to appear neutral "because of the room light," but because your vid camera settings are set to compensate for the warm room light (so that you and your shirt etc look neutral). The room light does not materially change the appearance of the monitors but the vid camera setting does. The monitors create their own light. You could for instance install daylight color bulbs in your office instead of down temping the monitors. I may not be expressing that exactly, or it may be so trivial as to be unwelcomed, but I know people are easily confused by this area of tech so I mention it in good faith. People overrate calibration, which on a really good monitor as you say is rarely needed. You find mostly that you get a calibrator, run it and see tons of data that means very little, then when you run it again nothing much seems to change, because it doesn't. Monitor calibration is important in offices where many monitors are used for the same project and all must agree closely, or for offices working with precisely colored corporate logos and client presentations, or for a photographer who wants to tout to a client that the workflow is color calibrated when they try to complain the color "does not look right." I completely agree calibration matters most to average users on poorer monitors. An interesting point is that no matter what your monitor looks like, you can tell the real color of any point in the image numerically, with the color picker in Photoshop. Any RGB that is three equal number is a shade of pure grey, of course. You get that right and the rest of the colors will be as they should be, no matter how they look. Hence the value of including a grey or white card in a shot when you can to check color balance of the file later. On a personal note, I just received an Eizo monitor made in Japan, with a built-in calibrator that swings out from the bezel on a schedule and runs the calibration software automatically. I've have not yet set it up, but the company phone support out of California is outstanding.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, technically that is quite true - I do often simplify things in videos where extraneous stuff might confuse some... or more likely lead me off at a tangent ;-) Well, that and I cannot work from scripts so they are mostly shot in one take...

[@johnsmith1474]

​@@KeithCooper - I get it, and I subscribe for the valuable insights not for background music and flying intros. It's a no bs presentation, and as I like mention, I bought your book.

[@KeithCooper]

Much appreciated ;-)

[@amrilizanimran7839]

Hi Keith.. appreciate if u could do a video explaining on delta e values.. ie is lower delta e better than a higher delta e, as long as both delta Es are below 2? What is the ideal delta e? Reason i am asking is because i hv two monitors (benq sw 272u), one monitor will give me delta e of circa 0.5 + while the other monitor will always give me delta e circa 0.8+ even if both calibration values are the same. Can i say that the monitor with the lower delta e is more accurate than the monitor with the higher delta e?

[@amrilizanimran7839]

Also there is a monitor matching function in Palette Master Ultimate, however not much videos on youtube to really explain how this feature works or how do u do it.. perhaps u could also take a look atvthis feature.. thanks a million!

[@KeithCooper]

Those numbers merely tell you that one screen works slightly better with your calibrator than another. I ignore them, other than to spot any really obvious problems relating to previous calibrations or issues during the calibrations [someone came in and switched all the lights on whilst I'd gone away to make a coffee during the calibration] At the level you are asking they would only be meaningful if the measurements were made with a high end [$$$] measuring device

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - seen that - couldn't see any actual use for it. Your visual systems adjusts/adapts merely by turning your head, so unless you are building a wall of monitors. I'd just calibrate each to its best...

[@hoggif]

Lower delta E is better but I think when you get to 1.0 or so it's perfect enough. I think you'll never see any difference from 1.0 or better and perhaps not even with larger errors like 2.0. I think 1.0 is the basic value considered perfect for accurate reference monitor use. Chasing anything better than 1.0 is not worth it.

[@amrilizanimran7839]

@@hoggif yes you are absolutely right. I can see no difference with a delta e of 0.8 vis-a-vis a delta e of 0.50, so long as it is below 1.00. Just wondering why monitors with the same brand and model can have two different delta e values.

[@hoggif]

I've noticed I get a bit different results with by very very old Spyder, Calibrite cheapo and Calibrite spectrometer. Yes, spectrometer is the best (and closest to factory measurement report of my factory calibrated monitor). It is also the most expensive. I could probably live with any of them but on one laptop monitor I got large temperature shifts (say 200 or 400K difference from 6500K). It had very poor color renderation anyway.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - whilst older models may be functionally quite OK, they may not have the calibration data [or internal filters] to cope with newer screen technologies. The differences in display backlight technologies is the main reason older devices cease to be ideal.

[@jamescaulfield3907]

I produce photography that is most often purposed for use in printed publications, i.e, books, printed 4-color on presses usually in China. I undestand that the printer suppied profile will enable my conversion from RGB to CMYK in the best possible fashion for a given press, however... how would you recommend I calibrate my two identical monitors at the studio in order that I'm not ultimately shocked (in a bad way) by the color interpretation once ink hits paper?

[@KeithCooper]

First up, explore just what CMYK really means - an understanding of this is as important as any 'tech fix'. Having a profile is just one piece of the jigsaw. More detail? A copy of "Real World Color Management" by Fraser et al. is always my next suggestion ;-) As to calibration, a lower temperature [D50] may help - once again just one piece, but you need to know why... I've had a lot of queries about this over the years, and this is my 'evolved' answer based on experience from our bespoke training business amongst other things. If a business wants training, but 'just' a simple 'step by step guide' without the 'understanding' bit, we won't take the gig ;-) It's complex enough that, as a photography business, we will not supply photos in CMYK, without agreed written conversion instructions - AND we charge for any conversion...

[@jamescaulfield3907]

@@KeithCooper Thanks, Keith. I can appreciate your perspective. And, I do have Bruce's book, however I think what I was trying to get at specifically was a prescribed method for calibration, based upon my diplays of course, that might help keep me out of trouble. I was referring to the fact that if I use one set of calibration hardware/software, I get a specific result. If I happen to use another/different set of calibration hardware/software, I seem to get a different result. Which one should be trusted, I'm left to wonder...?!?!

[@KeithCooper]

Excellent - all the right directions! You note a genuine issue - there is no simple way of knowing [absolutely] just how good a calibration is. If going for a lower temperature, then see what checking/verification features the software/hardware has, but of course, it's only as accurate as the measuring device. I'd prefer a hardware calibrated monitor - but the real key comes from the bit you've already addressed - the base understanding of what's going on!

[@johnsmith1474]

@@KeithCooper - You hit that nicely, avoid converting for print houses unless they offer specs that cannot be complained about later, as in, "No complaints - I gave you what you specified, that is the deal." It's an important general point that responsibility for print output is on the printer. The provider of the data works with them, not for them, or you will go nuts. Most printers are ahead of this anyway & will tell you to give a really good looking file, they'll handle the conversion, it's their world. On the other hand if a job is extensive, be perfectly consistent with what you provide a printer and you establish a lovey reliable relationship.

[@FLMUSACanada]

I’d get different results if the calibrator was plugged into a USB hub vs plugged directly into the computer. So a consistent methodology is important, as is keeping a record of every calibration report.

[@KeithCooper]

That's a fault somewhere, but good for spotting it. As for keeping records... yes, I'm aware of the concept in principal ;-)

[@FLMUSACanada]

@@KeithCooper the BenQ software makes it easy for aimless slobs like me to generate a report and file it away. After that, I need a nap.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@FLMUSACanada - You should nap while the calibration runs.

[@TheNathanMChannel]

How my brain works… Look at one monitor: it’s neutral Look at two monitors: one of these is more neutral Look at three monitors: None of these are neutral! Ahh!

[@KeithCooper]

One reason I always say that after calibrating a monitor go out of the room and come back in again. Less important these day as monitors tend to be better 'out of the box'...

[@messylaura]

simplest way to know if you are on point is to have a colorchecker to hand and see if the accuracy of the image you have taken looks right to the colourchecker in your hand for sure there is the obvious difference between a back lit screen and a physical object but its going to show if any individual colours are out of sorts Hey Keith, when it comes to your eyes vs some one elses thats one i have always thought about, my red might be a completely different colour ro anyone elses, heck it could even be what you see as yellow and i dont think there is any way of telling what we see is there? the center of a japanesse flag, a red london bus and a can of coke red are all going to be the same basic colour as its not related to colour defects like colour blindness but just what our own brains see those colours to be.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes the CC card is a good quick test... I get Karen to check some colours for me since she has better colour differentiation and can sort gems by colour which all look the same to me.

[@paulbennett274]

@@KeithCooper Ladies frequently have better colour differentiation than men. I understand that there is some evolutionary evidence that confirms this bias in favour of the female of our species with the male's vision generally better at discerning movement; although there is no definitive consensus as to why it has occurred the general assumptions relate to the historical role differences between the sexes. 'Vive la difference' as the French say!

[@KeithCooper]

@@paulbennett274 Yes - regularly points out when my B&W prints have a colour tint!

[@memcrew1]

@@paulbennett274detecting movement.